Richardson vs. Atherton (Tests)

[Beleg]

From an opponent's prespective, during the early 2000's, the most valuable wicket in New Zealand's batting line-up was Richardson's.

However, during the 90's, the most valuable wicket in England's line up was either Gooch, Thorpe or Stewart. Atherton mincing around never really bothered me - I knew it was a matter of time before he was removed.

Make of it what you will.

 

[Richard]

First thing I'd make out of it was that England's batting was stronger than New Zealand's. Though they did possess players, like Fleming, Astle and even sometimes Cairns who I'd consider more capable players than Richardson, who I'd feel more confident in them performing under a wide range of circumstances.

Also I'd have been far happier as an opponent to see Atherton's wicket fall than Thorpe's for most of their careers - from 1994 (when Gooch ceased to be The Key Wicket) to 2000. Thorpe you always knew he had a good chance of blocking your way for a while, and maybe counter-punching a fair bit, but was pretty unlikely to turn it into a substantial contribution that could take the game away from you. Atherton, you knew that if you didn't get him early, he could really punish you (though that doesn't, obviously, mean he always would).

Only in about 2001 did Thorpe correct this issue. Which was the exact same time that Atherton ceased to be a wicket any opposition would do more than be expected to take cheaply, due to the decline in his play.

Never, when seamers were involved, did I rate Atherton higher than Stewart though. Atherton was a vastly better player of the ball the moment it started turning, but (even though Stewart like Atherton had flaws in his game) I always felt better with him in when the seamers were on. Not least because you knew Stewart would punish a smaller error than Atherton would.

 

[Flem274*]

If Atherton was better against spinners, why on earth did he not bat at four or five?

 

[Richard]

A perfectly valid question, but not I don't think one with an answer beyond "he always opened".

Despite what some think, Atherton was actually a pretty decent player of seam. Certainly the second-best after Stewart following Gooch's retirement (or, rather, his last good innings in 1994). He was obviously streets ahead of his peers at age-group level, and I'm pretty sure he just always opened the batting, from the first time he played organised cricket matches.

I'm not sure anyone ever tried him at four or five. It's certainly not an idea devoid of merit, but there were no Geoff Boycotts or John Edrichs - or even Brian Luckhursts or Colin Milburns - around at the time. Just Mark Lathwells and Nick Knights. And Stewart was - rightly - perennially being thought of as a wicketkeeper-four\five. Unfortunately, instead of being kept in that position from 1993 onwards, he wasn't given it full-time until 1996/97, and was constantly shifted up and down the order.

So with Gooch gone, no-one ever truly sure of Stewart's best role, and Atherton having done a more than acceptable job as an opener, the idea of moving him down wasn't ever really considered.

 

[DingDong]

3, if I rate a player higher than another player, yeah, obviously the one I rate lower can't be better than the one I rate higher to my mind, else my rating of them would be different.

ahhh.... Absolute Genius.

 

[BoyBrumby]

9 of the last 12 posts & 7 on the run. How is that not trolling? Seriously?

 

[Uppercut]

Think the "accidental" bit is rather too charitable, myself. Would be more inclined to believe it if he didn't feel the need to reply to every post with the same old arguments (presented, irritatingly, as fact) rehashed slightly.

I don't think he's dim enough not to realise he annoys a lot of otherwise fairly reasonable posters (self included), so one must ask the question why he does do it?

Well, it's not charitable. Generally i consider trolling, as my sig suggests, to be saying something extremely brash and illogically derived in order to infuriate others and bait them into responding. Dicko does it accidentally because he doesn't realise the lack of logic to his arguments, whereas usually trolls do but say them anyway to piss people off.

The other feature is that he holds his views religiously, no matter how convincing a case anyone makes. I thought TC (was it TC?)'s stats on Richardson vs. Atherton when the opposing team chose to bowl were sufficient enough to be almost conclusive, but it's far too late to change one's mind without losing face.

 

[Indipper]

Well, it's not charitable. Generally i consider trolling, as my sig suggests, to be saying something extremely brash and illogically derived in order to infuriate others and bait them into responding. Dicko does it accidentally because he doesn't realise the lack of logic to his arguments, whereas usually trolls do but say them anyway to piss people off.

Your sig does not take into account the intention of the poster though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, it's not charitable. Generally i consider trolling, as my sig suggests, to be saying something extremely brash and illogically derived in order to infuriate others and bait them into responding. Dicko does it accidentally because he doesn't realise the lack of logic to his arguments, whereas usually trolls do but say them anyway to piss people off.

The other feature is that he holds his views religiously, no matter how convincing a case anyone makes. I thought TC (was it TC?)'s stats on Richardson vs. Atherton when the opposing team chose to bowl were sufficient enough to be almost conclusive, but it's far too late to change one's mind without losing face.

So Richard is too dim to realise? Controversial stuff...

I disagree tho, actually. I think he's quite aware of how daft some of his arguments seem to others (people tell him often enough) but does it anyway because he either can't help himself or is sufficiently up his own jacksy not to care. Whichever is the case it's bad for forum morale IMHO.

He def satisfies the "brash and illogical" troll criteria too.

 

[Uppercut]

So Richard is too dim to realise? Controversial stuff...

I disagree tho, actually. I think he's quite aware of how daft some of his arguments seem to others (people tell him often enough) but does it anyway because he either can't help himself or is sufficiently up his own jacksy not to care. Whichever is the case it's bad for forum morale IMHO.

He def satisfies the "brash and illogical" troll criteria too.

Ah, I don't believe so. Unlike you, i think he's absolutely fine 95% of the time, or as long as he's kept of certain topics. However, i find it more believable to see him as someone who finds it difficult to admit it when they're wrong than someone who just enjoys winding people up.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ah, I don't believe so. Unlike you, i think he's absolutely fine 95% of the time, or as long as he's kept of certain topics. However, i find it more believable to see him as someone who finds it difficult to admit it when they're wrong than someone who just enjoys winding people up.

The trouble is that the 5% where he's not fine would still amount to over 3000 posts of the most fetid arse gravy.

 

[Precambrian]

First thing I'd make out of it was that England's batting was stronger than New Zealand's.

If it were it did not reflect much in the actual performances.

England avg batting avg in the 90s - 30.39
NZ avg batting avg in the 90s - 29.70

 

[Flem274*]

If it were it did not reflect much in the actual performances.

England avg batting avg in the 90s - 30.39
NZ avg batting avg in the 90s - 29.70

My God thats low for both sides. Is that taking into account tailenders?

I mean, NZ had Crowe and Jones for half the decade, and Greatbatch was semi-decent. I know for a bit it was solely the Fleming, Astle, Cairns show but then things took an upward turn at the end of the decade.

Not so expert on England but they did have Gooch, Stewart, Thorpe, Hussain and, er, Atherton.

 

[Ikki]

Ah, I don't believe so. Unlike you, i think he's absolutely fine 95% of the time, or as long as he's kept of certain topics. However, i find it more believable to see him as someone who finds it difficult to admit it when they're wrong than someone who just enjoys winding people up.

Does it really matter if he intends to do it or not? It's like when someone murders another because he doesn't have the mental capacity, as opposed to doing it out of murderous intent. If something is not done people are still harmed. I think the same with Richard. I believe generally, he knows that people disagree, but he has some imagination and seems to always lump his argument in with the majority when it's clear he is in the very small minority. And then when it's painfully obvious, he posts even more to reason out his non-sense. If he could stick to saying things as opinion and not berating everybody as if it's a fact, then that would be something, at least. But he replies that it is his "opinion". But hounding a whole forum with your opinion, on everything, again and again is the very definition of trolling.

 

[NZTailender]

Does it really matter if he intends to do it or not? It's like when someone murders another because he doesn't have the mental capacity, as opposed to doing it out of murderous intent. If something is not done people are still harmed. I think the same with Richard. I believe generally, he knows that people disagree, but he has some imagination and seems to always lump his argument in with the majority when it's clear he is in the very small minority. And then when it's painfully obvious, he posts even more to reason out his non-sense. If he could stick to saying things as opinion and not berating everybody as if it's a fact, then that would be something, at least. But he replies that it is his "opinion". But hounding a whole forum with your opinion, on everything, again and again is the very definition of trolling.

Haha, what? You're comparing Richard to a murderer? Great comparison there.

Seriously, it's actually pretty simple.
Richard has his opinions, and he has his own reasons and arguments to back up his opinions. He also has conviction and confidence in his opinions and will defend them to the hilt. To some this may strike as being delusional, but if you look at it from another angle, something very simple happens: Richard argues his point and doesn't back down or concede that he's wrong in his opinion, which pisses off the other guy because he believes that he is right in his opinion, but Richard must be delusional and wrong because in his opinion Richard's opinion is absurd.

And as far as 'trolling' goes, Richard doesn't exactly start topics in great numbers on his opinions, and most of these arguments come about invariably when a topic crosses his pet subjects, e.g. Hayden, first chance average etc etc. Richard will gladly put his opinion forward on such subjects, which is the normal practice of a discussion forum such as this, to which people will reply at great length to debate his opinion. While it seems this happens a lot, you have to remember that it tends to happen for two reasons: 1) new members who are uninitiated to Richard and this forum will be new to such ideas as Atherton>Hayden and the like so they will reply with eagerness, and 2) it takes two to tango; Richard isn't exactly posting and replying to himself with duplicate accounts just for the sake of it.

Regardless of your opinion on him, Richard is simply human with his own ways of operating. In my mind, certainly, he isn't right on quite a few subjects and while I've argued sometimes at length with him on subjects where I think he is wrong, I don't begrudge him because in the reverse, he thinks I am wrong on a particular subject, and it simply all comes down to opinion. Though, at times, I have to say Richard's posting style isn't entirely great in terms to stating opinion in that at times he seems to state it as a cold hard fact when it isn't, but that's a reflection of his deep belief in his own opinion set.

In short it seems to come down to a few basic things: Richard is knowledgeable on cricket. Richard has his opinions. Richard will defend what he believes is the right opinion. Other people think Richard is wrong and criticise him for thinking such things and get frustrated when he doesn't back down, when in fact that's what they are also doing with their opinions. Can you see the irony there somewhere?

And, for all the talk that goes on in regards to Richard I think you should put up or shutup. If you don't like his posts then don't ****ing read them, it's not too hard. And if you put him on ignore, leave it at that and stop whinging on about him, as it's boring and annoying and it doesn't help matters.

I'd also like to point out that regardless of opinions and whatnot, Richard has to be one of the least malicious posters I've ever encountered on the internet. A strange man with strange methods for the most part, he's a genuinely nice bloke and I think some of the insults leveled at him are not only poor but quite petty as well, stemming for the most part from frustration in not being able to argue him down.

Grey old mare ain't what she used to be, TBH.

 

[Athlai]

AWTA
^^^ The guy is a gun. Complete utter gun.

 

[fredfertang]

Yes, though not as much as some.

It was the reference to Keith Fletcher that made me wonder

 

[BoyBrumby]

Haha, what? You're comparing Richard to a murderer? Great comparison there.

Seriously, it's actually pretty simple.
Richard has his opinions, and he has his own reasons and arguments to back up his opinions. He also has conviction and confidence in his opinions and will defend them to the hilt. To some this may strike as being delusional, but if you look at it from another angle, something very simple happens: Richard argues his point and doesn't back down or concede that he's wrong in his opinion, which pisses off the other guy because he believes that he is right in his opinion, but Richard must be delusional and wrong because in his opinion Richard's opinion is absurd.

And as far as 'trolling' goes, Richard doesn't exactly start topics in great numbers on his opinions, and most of these arguments come about invariably when a topic crosses his pet subjects, e.g. Hayden, first chance average etc etc. Richard will gladly put his opinion forward on such subjects, which is the normal practice of a discussion forum such as this, to which people will reply at great length to debate his opinion. While it seems this happens a lot, you have to remember that it tends to happen for two reasons: 1) new members who are uninitiated to Richard and this forum will be new to such ideas as Atherton>Hayden and the like so they will reply with eagerness, and 2) it takes two to tango; Richard isn't exactly posting and replying to himself with duplicate accounts just for the sake of it.

Regardless of your opinion on him, Richard is simply human with his own ways of operating. In my mind, certainly, he isn't right on quite a few subjects and while I've argued sometimes at length with him on subjects where I think he is wrong, I don't begrudge him because in the reverse, he thinks I am wrong on a particular subject, and it simply all comes down to opinion. Though, at times, I have to say Richard's posting style isn't entirely great in terms to stating opinion in that at times he seems to state it as a cold hard fact when it isn't, but that's a reflection of his deep belief in his own opinion set.

In short it seems to come down to a few basic things: Richard is knowledgeable on cricket. Richard has his opinions. Richard will defend what he believes is the right opinion. Other people think Richard is wrong and criticise him for thinking such things and get frustrated when he doesn't back down, when in fact that's what they are also doing with their opinions. Can you see the irony there somewhere?

And, for all the talk that goes on in regards to Richard I think you should put up or shutup. If you don't like his posts then don't ****ing read them, it's not too hard. And if you put him on ignore, leave it at that and stop whinging on about him, as it's boring and annoying and it doesn't help matters.

I'd also like to point out that regardless of opinions and whatnot, Richard has to be one of the least malicious posters I've ever encountered on the internet. A strange man with strange methods for the most part, he's a genuinely nice bloke and I think some of the insults leveled at him are not only poor but quite petty as well, stemming for the most part from frustration in not being able to argue him down.

Grey old mare ain't what she used to be, TBH.

God, so many points there.

1) Ikki was clearly using an analogy to suggest that the end effect is the same regardless of intent, rather than comparing Richard to a murderer per se.

2) Richard doesn't back up his own opinions with arguments though; he forms his opinions and then holds fast to them regardless of any evidence presented to refute them. This is, at best, childish (the automatic gainsaying of anyone who disagrees is just contrariness rather than an argument, which to my way of understanding is an evolving discussion to establish a contention or hypothesis) but is made downright annoying by him presenting his ideas as facts with lashings of adverbs.

3) Richard isn't obliged to reply to every post individually, nor is it necessary when he's making the same point over and over ad ****ing nuseum. He does have some volition in this regard.

4) Richard has a healthy grasp of stats, if a somewhat distorted way of interpreting them, but this isn't the same as being knowledgeable on cricket. He's quite prepared to say such-and-such isn't and has never been a good bowler despite never having even seen them. Cricket is a sport played on grass strips not stats guru, to paraphrase Swervy.

5) When over 60% of posts on a page don't show up because I have him on ignore it makes it very difficult to follow the thread and when other posters quote him his wisdom shows up anyway, so one can't escape him.

6) Richard demonstrably is bordering on malicious. He posts, quite without irony, stuff like "I hope Hayden fails every time he goes to bat" & "Nothing is more upsetting than seeing a mediocre bowler succeed". This makes him come across as petty and small-minded and could even be considered malicious. If Richard just had some odd ideas about the sport there wouldn't be an issue, but he's an awfully long way from the cross between EW Swanton & Mother Teresa you seem to see to view him as.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

When you see a comparison thread as spurious as this one with a player grossly overrated by Richard and with an irrelvevant option which interests no one but Richard you have to wonder whether the motive of the thread was to produce another Richardcentric bating thread. (Which has apparently succeeded).

 

[Athlai]

When you see a comparison thread as spurious as this one with a player grossly overrated by Richard and with an irrelvevant option which interests no one but Richard you have to wonder whether the motive of the thread was to produce another Richardcentric bating thread. (Which has apparently succeeded).

Was my motive.